Nope. Federal law did not set speed limits, merely tied a certain percentage of highway funding to the enactment of certain speed limits by the state. The rationale (as upheld by the courts) was that the federal government had a vested interest in conserving fuel (accomplished by the limits) but there was no actual federal speed limit. Similar to the 21 year drinking age. States were free to have whatever speed limit they wanted, as they are now free to have whatever drinking age they want. If they are willing to forgo federal sugar.

I doubt you would get the same sort of consensus on lane splitting as a federal interest nor, I suspect, would the courts uphold that rationale although one never knows what courts will do.

Oh, and federal government has tried this with motorcycle helmet laws as well, tying federal funding to mandatory helmet laws.

As a matter of principle I am opposed to these tactics by the federal government because I think it is not the place of the feds to be making these decisions absent a Constitutional right being involved but that's a different argument.